No abstract

No abstract

Differences in the effect sizes across the three pilot studies could be explained by length of treatment, number of group psychotherapists and their training. Although there are limitations to the presented pilot studies such as differences in the samples, treatment settings, variations in the treatment itself and the use of different measures, which may have influenced outcome, they are a starting point for describing and evaluating inpatient treatment for BPD in naturalistic settings.

This study presents an evaluation of the German version of the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI) including reliability and validity analyses. Psychometric properties were assessed. We analyzed the factor structure, internal reliability as well as intercorrelations between the subscales, and compared it to the results of the original version. This was done in a sample of N = 432 nonpatients, psychiatric patients with axis I and axis II diagnoses, and forensic patients. Results indicated a 14-factor structure of the SMI and good-to-excellent internal reliabilities of the 14 subscales (Cronbach’s α from .70 to .95). Furthermore, groups of nonpatients and psychiatric patients could be differentiated by their modes in the SMI as theoretically predicted. A first description of the mode presentations of forensic patients is presented.

ObjectiveTo explore conflicts of interest (COI) and their reporting in systematic reviews of psychological therapies, and to evaluate spin in the conclusions of the reviews.MethodsMEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2013 that assessed effects of psychological therapies for anxiety, depressive or personality disorders, and included at least one randomised controlled trial. Required COI disclosure by journal, disclosed COI by review authors, and the inclusion of own primary studies by review authors were extracted. Researcher allegiance, that is, that researchers concluded favourably about the interventions they have studied, as well as spin, that is, differences between results and conclusions of the reviews, were rated by 2 independent raters.Results936 references were retrieved, 95 reviews fulfilled eligibility criteria. 59 compared psychological therapies with other forms of psychological therapies, and 36 psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions. Financial, non-financial, and personal COI were disclosed in 22, 4 and 1 review, respectively. 2 of 86 own primary studies of review authors included in 34 reviews were disclosed by review authors. In 15 of the reviews, authors showed an allegiance effect to the evaluated psychological therapy that was never disclosed. Spin in review conclusions was found in 27 of 95 reviews. Reviews with a conclusion in favour of psychological therapies (vs pharmacological interventions) were at high risk for a spin in conclusions (OR=8.31 (1.41 to 49.05)). Spin was related in trend to the inclusion of own primary studies in the systematic review (OR=2.08 (CI 0.83 to 5.18) p=0.11) and researcher allegiance (OR=2.63 (0.84 to 8.16) p=0.16).ConclusionsNon-financial COI, especially the inclusion of own primary studies into reviews and researcher allegiance, are frequently seen in systematic reviews of psychological therapies and need more transparency and better management.